- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 12:08:17 -0400
- To: public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <m2k5pty6q6.fsf@nwalsh.com>
See http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-minutes
W3C[1]
- DRAFT -
XML Processing Model WG
Meeting 87, 11 Oct 2007
Agenda[2]
See also: IRC log[3]
Attendees
Present
Norm, Paul, Alessandro, Murray, Andrew, Alex, Rui, Richard
Regrets
Mohamed
Chair
Norm
Scribe
Norm
Contents
* Topics
1. Accept this agenda?
2. Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
3. Next meeting 18 Oct 2007
4. Review of action items:
5. Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted)
output
6. Comment 1: An unfulfilled requirement maybe? (p:exec)
7. Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs
8. Comment 18: Scope of step types
9. Any other business.
* Summary of Action Items
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Accept this agenda?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-agenda
Accepted.
Accept minutes from the previous meeting?
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/04-minutes
Accepted.
Next meeting 18 Oct 2007
Richard gives regrets.
Review of action items:
A-86-01: Continued
A-86-02: Completed.
A-86-03: Continued
A-86-04: Continued
A-86-05: Completed.
A-86-06: Completed.
Comment 29: Determining whether a pipeline has a (defaulted) output
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#029
<scribe> Continued to the next meeting.
Comment 1: An unfulfilled requirement maybe? (p:exec)
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#001
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-comments/2007Oct/0018.html
Also: the wrap-*-lines options
Norm: Any discussion?
Richard: What about the syntax of cwd?
Norm: Like command, it ought to accept either form of slash
Proposal: Adopt this as a new optional step?
Accepted.
Richard: Given that it's optional; some platform might only implement it
partially, is that allowed?
Norm: What sort of optional?
Richard: As a fictitious example, imagine an example where cwd doesn't
make any sense.
Alex: If that's the case, we should make it a dynamic error.
Richard: Yes, but that's probably already the case.
Alex: I think this is a broader quesiton about partial implementation of
optional steps.
Norm: I think the broader question of partially implemented optional steps
is different.
Richard: An impl could provide a "conformant" flag that didn't offer the
partially implemented steps.
Comment 6: Bindings for pipeline inputs
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#006
->
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0058.html
That's Norm's example of why he wants this; at least two folks were
supportive.
Richard: I had plans to have the primary input to a pipeline come from
stdin; if I have to provide a default if its not there, I don't see how to
do that.
Murray: If the input binding comes from an input decl and you override it
on the command line, what do you do inside the pipeline to designate that?
Norm: I use the port name on the command line.
Henry: I think that's the way we intended to do the bindings from the
outside.
Murray: The other way to think of it is to say that the pipeline binds to
something passed on the command line.
Some confusion about the distintion between a default binding for a named
port and a defaulted port.
Murray: I'm confused by the use of the word default. You want a binding
for a port name to a source on the command line.
Richard: The impl. has to provide that.
... This defaulting is a way for a pipeline author to say what happens if
the user *doesn't* provide the binding.
Norm: Coming back to Richard's question, if your implement always binds
stdin to the p:pipeline's primary input port.
Richard: Ok. So in my case, the pipeline author's default would never come
into play.
Henry: My impl works the same way wrt the stdin binding to the primary
input.
... This just means implementations have to have syntax (command line, or
whatever) to specify all three possibilities: bind to a document, bind to
stdin, or use the pipeline-specified default.
... AFAICS, the only occasion I can see for using this is to have a
pipeline with a fixed input. And we already have a mechanism for
supporting that.
Norm: The other need is pipeline configurations.
Henry: Yes, I can imagine feeling different about this for secondary
inputs than primary ones.
Murray: I'm increasingly confused. It seems like you're trying to put a
lot of process control on the command line.
... Putting stuff outside the pipeline when it could be inside seems to
defeat the purpose of a pipeline language.
... You can do all this in your pipeline.
Richard: How do you implement the conditionality?
Murray: I thought I could examine if I've got content on an input port.
Some discussion of how XProc and XSLT differ...
Further discussion about how bindings should be done on the command line
or whether the spec should say.
Alex: Would it help to distinguish between the top-level invocation of a
pipeline and calling the pipeline as a step?
... So the default bindings could be considered separate from the
declaration.
Norm: Perhaps...
<richard> this seems to be even further opposed to what murray wants
Alex: This is metadata about the pipeline defaults.
<Zakim> ht, you wanted to say "OK"
Henry: With the clarification that this story only applies to top-level
pipelines, not to pipelines being run as steps, (with some complication
about what it means if this is used in a library)
... I think we've thrashed this to death; I think it may be more trouble
than it's worth, but let's see. So I'm cautiously in favor.
Alex: I'm confused: in favor of what?
Henry: In favor of clarifying that this is allowed and what the spec
intended.
... And it only means that when being invoked as a primary pipeline and
ignored when invoked as a step.
Norm: Is the next logical step for me to attempt to clarify this in the
spec and see if we like the results?
Alessandro: I think this would lose a lot of its utility if you could only
do this at the top level.
Henry: The interaction between that and the unbound primary input would be
very unclear.
Norm attempts to suggest that it can never occur, but Richard points out
that the default binding is only for primary input ports.
Richard: I'd be happier with it if defaults were only allowed on
non-primary input ports. That would resolve the issue for steps that were
never called. It would resolve the unnaturalness wrt stdin/stdout.
... The point of an input port being primary is that it's the one that
gets connected up by default.
Murray: I'd like to observe that XProc doesn't need to do everything. What
you're trying to do with processing foo.xml intead of langspec.xml could
be done with a shell script.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to take a stab at reconsidering the feature applying
it only to ports that are not primary. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action01[11]]
Comment 18: Scope of step types
-> http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/09/lastcall/comments#018
Norm: I'm tempted to adopt Richard's text and see how it goes.
<ht>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0049.html[13]
Richard: Pipelines are scopes unto themselves, they never export things
outside them.
... Pipeline libraries do export their internals.
Murray: I think it'll be useful to have a trivial example that shows the
scoping.
Richard: One of my messages did have some examples.
<richard>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0017.html[14]
Some question of circularity of imports.
<scribe> ACTION: Alex to propose some text about imports and circularity
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02[15]]
Richard: This isn't literally circularity, it's a place where the tree
joins up again.
<scribe> ACTION: Norm to attempt to incorporate Richard's draft text.
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action03[16]]
Any other business.
None.
Adjourned
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: Alex to propose some text about imports and circularity
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02[17]]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to attempt to incorporate Richard's draft text.
[recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action03[18]]
[NEW] ACTION: Norm to take a stab at reconsidering the feature applying it
only to ports that are not primary. [recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action01[19]]
[End of minutes]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.w3.org/
[2] http://www.w3.org/XML/XProc/2007/10/11-agenda
[3] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-irc
[11] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0049.html
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xml-processing-model-wg/2007Oct/0017.html
[15] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[16] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action03
[17] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action02
[18] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action03
[19] http://www.w3.org/2007/10/11-xproc-minutes.html#action01
[20] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[21] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl[20] version 1.128 (CVS
log[21])
$Date: 2007/10/11 16:07:24 $
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 16:08:32 UTC